Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Court Rules Homeschooling Illegal
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 3-4-08 | edcoil

Posted on 03/06/2008 7:32:18 AM PST by edcoil

LOS ANGELES, March 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Thousands of homeschoolers in California are left in legal limbo by an appeals court ruling that homeschooling is not a legal option in the state and that a family who has homeschooled all their children for years must enrol their two youngest in state or private schools. Justice H. Walter Croskey in a written opinion said, "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children."

The sweeping February 29th ruling says that California law requires "persons between the ages of six and eighteen" to be in "public full-time day school," or a "private full-time day school" or "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught".


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: ca; california; californication; communism; communismrules; diversitytraining; education; englishas2ndlanguage; homeschool; homeschooling; homosexualagenda; nofreedoms; ruling; selfesteemclasses; spanifornia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-206 next last
To: edcoil

Constitutional right? Where in ANY state or the Federal Constitution is this right specifically DENIED? The mandate is for children to be sufficiently instructed in the basic arts of communication and reasoning to be functioning adults in today’s world, and the PUBLIC schools have failed in fulfilling that ideal, sometimes miserably and with catastrophic results.

Common sense, by its very lack, is truly an uncommon asset.


21 posted on 03/06/2008 7:39:47 AM PST by alloysteel (No provision for ANY political party was ever written in the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Justice H. Walter Croskey

Tyrant.

22 posted on 03/06/2008 7:39:48 AM PST by EternalVigilance ("What fellowship has light with darkness?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
communication and reasoning to be functioning adults in today’s world

Requiring that would be racist.

23 posted on 03/06/2008 7:40:39 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

And where in the Constitution does it say you MUST put your kids in a public or private school?

USSC here we come.


24 posted on 03/06/2008 7:41:27 AM PST by Ron in Acreage (Jorge Bush has a 90% approval rating--In Mexico. McCain too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
Another story about this case identified the court as a California appellate court. So there are several levels of appeals to go through from here. This judge willfully ignored settled case law to get to where he got.

Freeper researchers, is this weasel a Democrat??

25 posted on 03/06/2008 7:42:19 AM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Edgar3

Are they concerned that homeschooled children may have an unfair advantage over those in the public indoctrination centers


26 posted on 03/06/2008 7:42:32 AM PST by kempster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, children are NOT real citizens of this country, are they? :*( Just something to be controlled and indoctrinated by the liberals who hate America’s Judeo-Christian values. *sigh*


27 posted on 03/06/2008 7:42:55 AM PST by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Soccer Mom and proud Rush Conservative with no dog in the presidential race now *sigh*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

I’m assuming this is a state court ruling. It sounds like Justice H. Walter Croskey needs the Rose Bird treatment. Further, the legislature needs to modify the statutes so that future nut-case judges can’t easily write decisions like this.


28 posted on 03/06/2008 7:43:07 AM PST by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Choice is soley for the purpose of killing them, not educating them once born.


29 posted on 03/06/2008 7:43:24 AM PST by Ron in Acreage (Jorge Bush has a 90% approval rating--In Mexico. McCain too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt
This judge willfully ignored settled case law to get to where he got.

Hallmark of a leftist judge - to simply rule in the way he wants things to be.

Why waste the "research" - he's obviously a democrat appointee.

30 posted on 03/06/2008 7:43:53 AM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

The SCOTUS should have no trouble overturning this. If it doesn’t, the term “public school” should be officially deleted and replaced by “public reeducation camp”. Even the weasley language about private schools is BS, since the left has strangled vouchers.


31 posted on 03/06/2008 7:45:10 AM PST by cake_crumb (I will criticize Obama as much and as often as I want.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil
“The sweeping February 29th ruling says that California law requires ‘persons between the ages of six and eighteen’ to be in ‘public full-time day school,’ or a ‘private full-time day school’ or ‘instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught’.”

The HSLDA has advised previously that homeschoolers can generally homeschool by qualifying as a “private full-time day school.” If one looks at the section of California law that govern, it's not tough to qualify.

I imagine that most homeschoolers in California probably qualify through this part of the law, or through association with a qualified private school. One wonders whether the appeals court meant to radically change the interpretation of the law to disqualify homeschoolers who use these legal avenues to homeschool (in which case they appear to have ignored the plain reading of the law), or whether the appeals court was merely stating that in THIS CASE, the legal requirements had not been met.

I read the opinion quickly the other day, and it appeared that the family was claiming some sort of umbrella-like association, and the appeals court specifically rejected their particular claim. I'm unsure that the court actually meant to negate the legality of everyone who is homeschooling through these legal methods.

32 posted on 03/06/2008 7:45:14 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: ClearCase_guy

“I weep for my country. Perhaps we have gone too long without a revolution or a civil war. Lord knows our nation has drifted far from what it was meant to be.”

I am with you.
Furthermore, I think that those of us who realize what is happening, are rapidly being outnumbered by the unaware, and those with evil intent.


34 posted on 03/06/2008 7:45:55 AM PST by brownsfan (America has "jumped the shark")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Everyone remember how important it is to keep decadent, Leftist judges off the courts—especially the Supreme Court—and therefore to defeat the Democrats in the Presidential election.


35 posted on 03/06/2008 7:46:12 AM PST by Savage Beast ("History is not just cruel. It is witty." ~Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Late June.


36 posted on 03/06/2008 7:47:36 AM PST by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pillut48
This isn't ripe for the SCOTUS. This was only a decision by an intermediate appeals court in California. This is certain to go to the California Supreme Court. And that Court may reverse this unbelievably stupid decision.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "The NY Times' Latest Hatchet Job on McCain"

A Freeper in Congress? Now is the time.

37 posted on 03/06/2008 7:47:45 AM PST by Congressman Billybob ( www.ArmorforCongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

One more reason to leave Kali.

I have spoken with many people who have left Kali. Only a very, very small percentage regret the move.


38 posted on 03/06/2008 7:47:54 AM PST by upchuck (Who wins doesn't matter. They're all liberals. Spend your time and money to take back Congress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

BTTT.

Another reason to like Texas.


39 posted on 03/06/2008 7:50:47 AM PST by texas booster (Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team # 36120) Cure Alzheimer's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Thanks for clarifying that sitetest. My first thoughts were how do you qualify as a private educational school in CA. Seems that was the point of the ruling.

You some lawyer or somethin’?

40 posted on 03/06/2008 7:51:04 AM PST by poobear (Pure democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. God save the Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-206 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson